Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in adjournment proceedings to talk about the answers that I received to a couple of questions back in October. For those who do not recall the events then, there was quite a bit of confusion over Thanksgiving weekend and the days that followed, when it was reported by The Globe and Mail that it was the intention of the Canada Revenue Agency to begin taxing the benefits of retail employees.

This was reported and people thought this seemed unusual and probably thought this was not something the Liberals were doing, yet on the following business day on Tuesday, that was when initially the government confirmed that this was what it was going to do, that a folio had been changed several months earlier to state that indeed it was going to tax the benefits of retail workers. This would include those who work in restaurants and shops, low-wage earners for the most part.

This was initially confirmed by the government and I seem to recall it was the President of the Treasury Board who went on a television program and confirmed that this was what they were doing. After a confused day, eventually the minister said, no, this was not their intention at all. She said at that time that this was not an intention of the government and that they were going to reverse that decision and change the folio to not tax retail workers.

I raised the question in question period. In the answer I received, as one can read in the Hansard, the parliamentary secretary talked about the middle class and other things and stated, “The document from the agency did not reflect the intentions of our government.”

I do not find the answer that I received satisfactory and we are here tonight to discuss that further. If this were not government policy, how did it come to be published in its folio? This was not something that some bureaucrat somehow did without anyone knowing. This is a publicly available document.

The Retail Council raised the prospect of the taxation of retail employee benefits at the finance committee, so this was out there in the public as a concern that some had, yet it took until The Globe and Mail had reported this for it to really get the public's attention. In answer to the question, the Liberals denied that this was government policy. They said this public folio, which gives guidance to tax preparers, did not represent government policy.

If it was not government policy, where was the minister to prevent this from happening? We have seen a number of things that have come about, such as the denial of a disability tax credit to disabled Canadians, to autistic Canadians, the troubles that have been experienced by single parents who have struggled with the agency in not being able to receive their benefits.

If this was not government policy, if this was just the bureaucrats running amok, why was the minister not taking responsibility and ensuring that her bureaucrats did not attack or target vulnerable Canadians?

Kamal KheraLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to put a stop, once again, to the misinformation that has been spread in recent months by some members of the opposition with the sole intent of confusing Canadians. In fact, I am quite taken aback by the misleading allegations they have made on the subject of employee benefits.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to set the record straight by separating myth from reality and letting members opposite know the truth of the matter.

The opposition seemingly prefers a reckless war of words over a clear-headed review of the numerous measures our government has taken to support the middle class and those working hard to join it.

We have emphatically stated before that the Canada Revenue Agency does not target retail employees' discounts.

Furthermore, contrary to what has been stated by the opposition, it is not considered a taxable benefit when employees working in a restaurant or at a food court counter purchase food from their employers at a reasonable discount.

To help taxpayers and their representatives comply with their tax obligations, the Canada Revenue Agency has a long-standing practice of posting technical publications on its website. The CRA's guidelines and folios provide practical guidance to taxpayers and tax preparers on how the CRA administers specific aspects of the Income Tax Act.

The tax folio on employee benefits and allowances was published on the CRA website on July 7, 2016. In October, 2017, after stakeholders expressed their concerns, the minister instructed the Canada Revenue Agency to remove the folio from its website and to clarify the wording and consult with stakeholders.

Furthermore, I would like to remind the member opposite that our government has raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians in order to lower taxes on the middle-class. Opposition members, including the one that I am debating with tonight, voted against that initiative. They have shown their true colours, and Canadians are not fooled.

We stopped the cheques the Conservatives were sending to the millionaires and we replaced them with the Canada child benefit, which put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families and lifted more than 300,000 children out of poverty.

Our government's focus has always been clear, and that is to help the middle class and those working hard to join them.

Mr. Speaker, I guess in the Liberals' world, when the government publishes a folio that says it will change how it deals with the taxation of employee benefits and then after a media storm of controversy quickly scrambles, backpedals, and changes it, that somehow the opposition is the confusing party and has misled Canadians.

It is the same with the disability tax credit. The governing party changed its documentation, its processes, and its paperwork in May and somehow the opposition misled Canadians. Somehow the opposition misled Canadians when the government made a decision that resulted in a tax credit being taken away from disabled Canadians. It backpedalled on it, switched it months later, and blamed the opposition for misleading Canadians. Canadians are not buying that.

The confusion on this issue is coming straight out of the department. The minister needs to get control of her department and ensure that it communicates clearly with Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, our government's first action was to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians so we could lower them for the most vulnerable and the middle class. As a result, nine million Canadians see more money on every paycheque now. The member opposite voted against that.

Our government is committed to delivering results to Canadians from a public service that has been internationally recognized as among the best in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House once again to talk about official languages and the importance of investing in our official language communities across the country. On February 1, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is also responsible for official languages, an extremely important question. My question was about the importance of heeding the ultimatum issued by community organizations that say official language minority communities across the country are under-funded.

It has now been 10 years since those organizations last received any additional funding, since their funding was indexed, yet the cost of living has risen steadily. They are stretched thin, and that is why they want stable, adequate funding that meets their needs so they can help communities grow and thrive.

It is high time that the Liberals and the minister put their words into action when it comes to official languages. As I said in the question, enough with the promises, enough with the empty rhetoric. It is time to take action. They are unable to keep their promises. We have not seen anything concrete. On the contrary, while they are twiddling their thumbs, there are problems everywhere: some organizations are forced to lay off all their employees and get by with the help of volunteers, and some organizations no longer have any offices.

I have two solid examples of the problems we are seeing right now. The first has to do with literacy and basic skills. The government decided to work on a project-by-project basis instead of providing stable funding. The Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, RESDAC, drummed up projects left and right and managed to survive thanks to its incredible resourcefulness. However, for two years now, all of their projects, their very good projects have been rejected. RESDAC has survived despite the fact that it no longer had basic funding.

In November or December, its representatives and those from FCFA held a huge press conference to say that the situation is dire, that they were in a bad way, that they were out of money, and that they were on life support. In fact, volunteers are providing minimal service. There is no longer an official languages literacy and basic skills support network anywhere in Canada. That is unbelievable to me. A complaint was even filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It resulted in two recommendations for which we are still awaiting a response. We are told they are working on it, but it will take at least six months to get any answers, while the needs are pressing. There needs to be an urgent response to help this group.

Chronic underfunding of community media is another problem. Community media, our official language community papers and radio stations, have lost over 80% of their advertising revenue. That is right: 80% of their revenue has evaporated.

I would like to know what the government is planning to do. Will it respond to the ultimatum?

Arif ViraniLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond. Our government has a clear mandate to develop a new official languages action plan that enhances the vitality of minority francophone and anglophone communities.

For two years now, we have been actively working to support English- and French-speaking Canadians from coast to coast to coast and to promote our official languages.

We would like to point out that, in the summer of 2016, we held 22 round tables across the country to hear from official language communities and work with them to address issues affecting their cultural development and vitality. We are proud to report that nearly 7,000 people participated in the consultation process on line and at the round tables.

The cross-Canada consultation process was carried out using an approach based on respect, openness, and sincere collaboration. What we learned has been used to develop a new multi-year official languages action plan to support English and French-speaking minorities across the country.

We listened very carefully to the concerns of our official language communities all over Canada. Those communities raised some crucial issues and challenges, including the importance of ensuring the continued existence of the Canadian Francophonie, as well as enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities, raising the individual bilingualism rate, and working to bring Canada’s linguistic communities closer together.

Our government is committed to putting forward a new official languages action plan, which will come into force on April 1, 2018. We and the member for Drummond know that our new action plan will breathe new life into government action in support of our linguistic minority communities, and we will stick to that plan.

We now have a new Commissioner of Official Languages, appointed in keeping with the government's commitment. This progress comes on the heels of many other meaningful steps our government has taken to support these communities. In particular, we have appointed two bilingual justices to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have modernized the court challenges program, initiated a review of the rules on designating bilingual service points, invested in the construction of educational infrastructure in minority communities, and restored the international mobility program, in relation to the other immigration program, as well as many other achievements that we are proud of.

Mr. Speaker, official language communities are demanding action. They want some very concrete and specific things, including an increase in funding. They are asking for $575 million over five years, the money they would have received over the past 12 years had their funding envelope been indexed. That would give them a chance.

The communities are also asking that federal funding be indexed as of the next budget. I asked for that before and the communities have been asking for it since 2017. Nothing has been done yet. The communities are also asking for more development programs by and for the communities. It is important that they be granted the opportunity to provide these programs. What is more, the action plan must have a real impact on the ability of official language communities to create their social fabric and enhance their vitality. These are important things that the communities are asking for.

Can my hon. colleague confirm that the government has heard the ultimatum delivered by the communities and will soon take action?

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my initial comments, we have already taken action. We are not just paying lip service; we are taking action.

I can tell my hon. colleague from Drummond that significant investments are directly made in community initiatives and projects every year. The next official languages action plan will renew this approach in order to support our official language minority communities.

I assure the member for Drummond that since 2015, the Government of Canada has made the reinvestment of dollars into the vitality of our official languages minority communities a priority both for the Acadian region and throughout the country.

We took the time to consult our official language communities and to listen to their concerns, and our next action plan will address these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight in adjournment proceedings, and the timing is almost impossible to believe. On October 20, I attempted to warn the Minister of Environment and the Prime Minister of how very dangerous it would be to give the offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada any power or role in environmental assessment. The idea that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board should have any role in the environmental assessment of projects over which they have regulatory authority is desperately worrying. I say that because these boards were created by legislation to expand offshore oil and gas. That is their role. They have a mandate to expand offshore oil and gas.

I said to the minister on October 20 that offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada have legislated mandates to expand oil and gas activity. They have never had any role in environmental assessment, and if they did, it would be a conflict of interest. Now it appears that the Liberals are following through on Stephen Harper's plan to put these boards into environmental assessments, where they should not be.

I have to say that my final question to the Minister of Environment was whether she could assure this House that she would keep these offshore boards out of environmental assessment. Her answer was not very clear on October 20. The answer is really clear today, because we now have omnibus Bill C-69, which entrenches a role for these very boards in environmental assessments, where they have no business being.

There has been a bit of fancy footwork in the Liberal talking points. Expert panels reviewed the broken laws left after the Harper era by omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45. We had massive consultations. Very high-powered expert boards were commissioned to look at the National Energy Board and provide recommendations and to look at the environmental assessment process and provide recommendations. Both recommended that energy regulators should play no role in environmental assessment and that there should be a stand-alone environmental assessment agency.

In some ways, if we were to read the press releases and the talking points, one might think that is what was just done today in Bill C-69. There is one agency, called the impact assessment agency, except for one thing. When one reads it in detail, one finds that when there is a project that would be regulated by one of these boards—what we used to call the National Energy Board, which we will have to get used to calling the Canadian energy regulator; the offshore petroleum boards; or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which, for the first time ever, Stephen Harper put in the frame of environmental assessment in 2012—under the Liberals, these boards would continue to play a role in environmental assessment.

This is how they did the fancy footwork. There is only one environmental assessment agency, but when a project falls into one of those jurisdictions, the people put on the panel to review the project must be taken from the boards of those agencies. They will apply their other laws at the same time as they go through environmental reviews.

Let me talk about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. I am going to quote Dr. Lindy Weilgart, an adjunct professor at Dalhousie University and an international expert on seismic blasting. She talked about the seismic surveys, approved by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, in the migratory habitat of the endangered right whale. Air guns are shot every 10 seconds around the clock. It is the loudest human-produced noise right after nuclear and chemical explosions. That is why she said that in 2016, 28 right whale experts declared that the additional distress of widespread seismic air gun surveys represented a tipping point for the survival of this species. The Liberals today have given these boards a role in environmental assessment.

I am horrified by this. I ask my colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, how she can live with what the government has just done.

Kim RuddLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the issue raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the role of offshore boards in environmental assessment.

In June 2016, the Government of Canada launched a comprehensive review to restore the confidence of Canadians in federal environmental assessment processes, restore lost protections of our fisheries and waterways, and modernize the National Energy Board. Now, after more than 14 months of extensive engagement with indigenous leaders, provincial and territorial leaders, businesses, environmental groups, and Canadians, the Government of Canada has introduced proposed legislation that reflects the values and priorities Canadians expressed throughout this process.

The proposed impact assessment act, tabled by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, lays out a vision for a modern impact assessment and regulatory system that recognizes that the environment and the economy must work together to help us build a sustainable future. It represents an important shift in the way that major projects will be assessed in Canada.

First, the proposed changes seek to broaden project reviews from environmental assessments to impact assessments with a focus on sustainability. This means that assessments would consider a broader range of potential impacts to understand how proposed projects could affect not just the environment but also social and health aspects, indigenous peoples, jobs, and the economy over the long term.

Second, regulatory certainty would be achieved by making the system more efficient and predictable, giving companies the clarity and predictability they need with legislated timelines. Also, a single federal agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, would lead all impact assessments for major projects. This includes projects that are regulated by the offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada. In recognition of the joint management offshore accords with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, the agency would collaborate with the offshore boards in reviewing major offshore oil and gas projects. This would ensure that we continue to rely on the wealth of technical knowledge and expertise that they have developed over the past 30 years. Under the proposed framework, decisions would be based on whether a project with adverse effects is in the public interest based on key factors.

Another element of the proposed legislation, reconciliation with indigenous peoples, is one of the main elements of the design of the new system. The proposed changes seek to build new partnerships based on recognition of indigenous rights up front. This includes early engagement and participation at every stage. This legislation would create new space for indigenous jurisdictions to enter into agreements with the federal government to exercise powers under the act, including the potential to conduct assessments. Going forward, it would be mandatory to consider and protect indigenous traditional knowledge alongside science and other evidence.

Finally, transparency and science are essential elements of the proposed new process. The new system aims for more openness and transparency. A new online platform would be created to share information and data, and to make it easier for the public to access.

In conclusion, the proposed legislation reflects values that are important to Canadians, including early, inclusive, and meaningful public engagement; nation-to-nation, Inuit-crown, and government-to-government partnerships with indigenous peoples; timely decisions based on the best available science and indigenous traditional knowledge; and sustainability for present and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take up the point that the hon. member has made, that the offshore petroleum boards have developed technical work and expertise. However, I have worked with these bodies. Their technical work and expertise means that the fox is guarding the hen house.

I will repeat that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board in 2010 knowingly approved seismic testing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence when the most endangered whale species on the planet was making its transit. These boards are irresponsible. They are reckless. They are captured by industry. Their mandate in their legislation is to expand offshore oil and gas. They must be removed from anything to do with environmental assessment.

It is not as if the government was not warned. The Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Peskotomuhkati first nations wrote to the government and told it that they had no confidence in these bodies. They begged it, as well as the fisheries organizations and environmental groups throughout Atlantic Canada, to not put the offshore boards anywhere near environmental assessment.

Members on that side of the house have ignored the warnings. The Liberals have betrayed the whales, Atlantic Canadians, fishermen, and first nations. They must get these boards out of environmental assessment.

Mr. Speaker, through this proposed legislation, the Government of Canada has demonstrated its commitment to restoring robust and thorough reviews of major projects while working closely with provinces to avoid duplication. Our goal is to provide regulatory certainty to business, to respect the rights of indigenous peoples, to engage communities, and to protect the environment for generations to come. We know that the environment and the economy must go hand in hand.